Law enforcement officers will be familiar with the Miranda warnings. Established in the United States Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), officers must warn an individual who is taken into custody and subject to questioning that he or she has the right to remain silent and that anything he or she says can be used against him or her in court. In addition, the individual must be advised that he or she has the right to an attorney, and if he or she cannot afford an attorney, then one will be provided. Custodial questioning can only begin once the individual knowingly and intelligently waives these rights and chooses to speak with the officer.
Not every interaction between an officer and a suspect is a formal arrest scenario. In general, officers may contact and converse with anyone in a public place without any lawful justification and without having to demonstrate reasonable suspicion or probable cause. This type of interaction is sometimes also referred to as a consensual encounter or a voluntary contact. The Miranda warnings are only required when a person is both in custody and subject to interrogation.
An encounter between a police officer and a citizen becomes custodial when the officer deprives the person of freedom in a significant way, including by arresting the person or subjecting them to arrest-like restraints. In the Miranda case, the Court determined a defendant was in custody when he was arrested in his home and taken to the police station, brought to an interrogation room, and questioned by two officers. There, the custody was clear as the defendant was under arrest.
Apart from custody, the other Miranda consideration is whether the defendant is subject to interrogation. The United States Supreme Court has defined “interrogation” as any words or actions by officers that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Officers must give the Miranda warnings before engaging in custodial questioning, but a defendant’s unprompted, spontaneous statements to officers are not a product of interrogation. Defendants can also waive their Miranda rights and submit to interrogation without an attorney, but a waiver must be made voluntarily.
Proper adherence to the Miranda decision is critical to ensure that statements obtained from a suspect will be admissible in court.
Interested in learning more?
PLS offers police online self-study legal training link: https://www.policelegalsciences.com/ on a wide variety of practical issues to help police officers make good decisions in challenging situations.